Further to our earlier post from February 2024, it is being reported that the Paris Court has ordered that the prosecution of the French cement maker Lafarge and eight individuals on charges of terrorist financing and breach of EU sanctions against ISIS should proceed to trial.
The case is part of a long running saga arising from allegations that the company paid money to ISIS in order to keep a cement plant open and operating.
Yesterday the Court of Appeal in the Hague issued judgment on an appeal against a conviction for multiple terrorism-related offences including one of making funds or economic resources available to a person designated under the EU’s ISIS sanctions.
The transfers were of €200 and €300 respectively.
The conviction was upheld on the basis that the necessary criminal intent was present:
“In order to prove that the regulations have been deliberately violated, it is not necessary to prove that there was intent to violate the standards set out in the indictment. The intent is colorless. However, it must be proved that the defendant intended that the sums of money would end up directly or indirectly with [person 1] and [person 2], to whom the Terrorism Sanctions Regulations 2007-II applied at the time“.
The total sentence was for a custodial prison term of 48 months, but it is not possible to identify what proportion of that was for the sanctions offence and what proportion for the other non-sanctions convictions.
The District Court of Rotterdam has convicted an individual on one count of making funds (€350) available to a person designated under the Dutch Terrorism Sanctions Regulations 2007.
The defendant was acquitted of another charge of making funds available to ISIS on the basis of a lack of evidence that the defendant knew the recipient was connected with ISIS and because the transfer had taken place after ISIS had been largely defeated in Syria.
The individual was sentenced to 60 hours of community service, although this time had already been performed by virtue of a lengthy pre-trial detention.
The post below has been updated on 17 June 2024 after the helpful input from the Sanctions Unit of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
Further to our earlier post, in late 2021 the Dutch Court of Appeal sentenced an individual to a six month custodial prison term for a number of offences including for making a payment in breach of the EU’s ISIS sanctions.
In his advice to the Dutch Supreme Court has upheld the Attorney General has advised that the convictions for terrorist financing and breaching the Dutch Sanctiewet 1977 be upheld, but that the conviction for money laundering be remanded to the Court of Appeal.
The facts relate to the transfer of €471 from an individual to his brother who was in Syria as part of ISIS. The defence sought to argue that the man did not have the required intent to support terrorism, or knowledge that the funds had benefitted ISIS.
As stated by the Attorney General at [2.9]:
“With regard to the violation of the provision of Article 2 of the Sanctions Act 1977, the offense proven under 2, the suspect’s intent does not have to be aimed at non-compliance with the legal regulations referred to in the finding of proof. The suspect’s intention must be aimed at ensuring that the money ends up indirectly with (a) terrorist organization”.
The Court of Appeal in the Hague has quashed some convictions and upheld others of a suspect charged with terrorist financing and with breaching the EU’s ISIS sanctions.
The underlying actions were the indirect transfer of approximately €4,550 in several tranches to the suspect’s daughter and son-in-law who were then in Syria as part of ISIS.
The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions for terrorist financing saying there was no evidence that that was the suspect’s intention.
The convictions under the EU’s sanctions were, however, upheld with the court noting that intention does not form part of the offence which consists simply of making funds or economic resources available to a designated person.
The defendant was given a four month custodial sentence.
On Friday France’s National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office applied to the Paris court to have charges of terrorist financing, and breach of the relevant EU sanctions heard against Lafarge Holcim and nine individuals.
This criminal trial would go ahead before the trial of Lafarge on allegations of crimes against humanity after the Court of Cassation ruled last month that those charges should proceed.
For our earlier posts on the Lafarge matter see here.
In three decisions last year, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) issued judgments dealing with persons charged with (amongst other crimes) making funds available to ISIS in breach of the relevant EU sanctions regulation.
One of the questions considered in the judgments is the extent to which transfers to individual members of the ISIS rank and file count as “making funds available” to ISIS itself.
On an appeal from an earlier conviction for transferring €245 in breach of the EU’s sanctions against ISIS and Al Qaeda, the Dutch Supreme Court has ruled that a conviction does not require a showing of any intention to breach the sanctions.
Completion of the transfer itself is enough to complete the offence.
The Rotterdam District Court has imposed a 30-month custodial sentence on an individual relating to a two-year period in which financial transfers of approximately $140,000 were made in breach of EU sanctions against ISIS and Al Qaeda.
The transfers were related to efforts to smuggle Dutch women who had travelled to Syria and Iraq to be part of ISIS out of that region and back to the Netherlands.
The Court of Appeal in the Hague has upheld the conviction of an individual on charges of breaching the EU sanctions against terrorist organisations.
Amongst other charges the individual was charged with making a financial transfer through intermediaries in Turkey and/or Syria to ISIS.
The man was sentenced to 9 months, of which 3 was conditional.
